Week 7: Free Speech Online

Issue 4: Freedom Speech

Should the internet allow unregulated freedom of speech?
There are two basic thoughts involved when addressing this question. The first is to allow unregulated postings and the other is to employ a type of censorship. The main argument for unregulated freedom of speech on the web is that it is a sound ideology in a democratic society. Without it, we could be the subject of personal attacks, and we could face legal charges. Also, with unregulated freedom of speech, persons can express their views both positive and negative which can allow people to see both views of an issue.

Another main issue concerning regulation is who is going to do the regulating. What are the rules? What is appropriate? Do the regulators have a personal bias in the issue being presented? Who is held responsible (the website or the poster)? What are the consequences? I do not think anyone is saying that it should be a free for all without some type of user’s agreement, but most people agree that the poster should be the one held accountable. A good example of content taken out of context through regulation involved the Dutch photographer Maarten Dors. He posted an image of a young Romanian adolescent smoking a cigarette on Yahoo’s photo-sharing service called Flickr. According to Yahoo, it depicted a child smoking which is a violation of an unwritten ban on Flickr. They did not see that he was trying to illustrate the hardship young people face in Romania which was his intent (Jedanun, 2008). It is a fine line that must be drawn in order to instill creativity but yet not create a platform that will be harming or demeaning.

On the legal side of things, there have been a number of legal cases involving website postings, but according to a federal law implemented in 1996 internet service providers can not be held responsible for content placed on a website. This law makes a distinction between what is posted on the web and what can be published in print. Unlike newspaper and magazine publishers, the law was designed to protect the internet service providers, but it does states that the author of the defamatory material could be held liable.